US: What is liberalism

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


Key phrase is I AM AN ATHIEST!!!

Of course. Most religious types are not liberals.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by ahasverus
Again and again I see you Americans say:
"oh you're against the war ,you're a Liberal"
Now what is liberalism to you?

Where I come from, liberalism is a political system that says "as little government as possible" aka you're taxes only pays for police and army if it's perfect.
What the Republicans stands for in my understanding.

Now why is there that difference between US and EU-definition?
Or I have misunderstood something?

Two explanations:

1. IGNORANCE

2. The (lack of) quality of the American educational system.

by the way, most Europeans are equally ignorant; most seem to have forgotten that Liberalism is also a political ideology -not restricted to economics- supporting a parliamentary system, rule of law, a constitution, personal liberty, property rights, separation of church and state etc.

Here is a verbatim quotation from two generally respected American historians, R.R. Palmer (Yale) and J. Colton (Duke), defining Liberalism as it should be understood historically:

"Classical Liberalism

The first Liberals, calling themselves by that name (though Napoleon used that word for his own system, as has been seen), arose in Spain among certain opponents of the Napoleonic occupation. The word then passed to France, where it denoted opposition to royalism after the restoration of the Bourbons in 1814. In England many Whigs became increasingly liberal, as did even a few Tories, until the great Liberal party was founded in the 1850s. Nineteenth-century, or 'classical', liberalism varied from country to country, but it showed many basic similarities.

Liberals were generally men of business and professional classes, together with enterprising landowners wishing to improve ther estates. They believed in what was modern, enlightened, efficient, reasonable, and fair. They had confidence in man's powers of self-government and self-control. They set a high value on parliamentary or representative government, working through reasonable discussion and legislation, with responsible ministries and an impartial and law-abiding administration. They demanded full publicity for all actions of government, and to assure such publicity they insisted on freedom of the press and free rights of assembly. All these political advantages they thought most likely to be realized under a good constitutional monarchy. Outside of England they favored explicit written constitutions. They were not democrats: they opposed giving every man the vote, fearing the excesses of mob rule or of irrational political action. Only as the nineteenth century progressed did liberals gradually and reluctantly come to accept the idea of universal male suffrage. They subscribed to the doctrines of the rights of man as set forth in the American and French revolutions, but with a clear emphasis on the right of property, and in their economic views they followed the British Manchester School or the French economist J.B. Say. They favored laissez faire, were suspicious of the ability of government to regulate business, wanted to get rid of the guild system where it still existed, and disapproved of attempts on the part of the new industrial laborers to organize unions.

Internationally they advocated freedom of trade, to be accomplished by the lowering or abolition of tariffs, so that all countries might exchange their products easily with each other and with industrial England. In this way, they thought, each country would produce what it was most fitted for, and so best increase its wealth and standards of living. From the growth of wealth, production, invention, and scientific progress they believed that the general progress of humanity would ensue. They generally frowned upon the established churches and landed aristocracies as obstacles to advancement. They believed in the spread of tolerance and education. They were also profoundly civilian in attitude, disliking wars, conquerors, standing armies, and military expenditures. They wanted orderly change by processes of legislation. They shrank before the idea of revolution. Liberals on the Continent were usually admirers of Great Britain."

(source: R.R. Palmer/J. Colton; 'A History of the Modern World',1995)

Even G.Bush jr. is -to some extent- a Liberal(!). He clearly favours a Constitutional Monarchy. So far he has failed to crush the trade unions though...

[Adam Smith]

Third Explanation: Language changes over time?

The term Liberalism, as defined above largely in contrast to Monarchy, has pretty much outlived its usefulness in the western world. Liberalism, defined in contrast to conservatism, is currently a more productive use of the term.

PS: Thanks to S. Kroeze for the extended classical definition.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He clearly favours a Constitutional Monarchy.

Aroo?

[Berzerker]

Ned - Pretty good post on p2 except for this:

Liberals are in favor of freedom from religion.

Freedom OF religion requires freedom FROM religion. Now, I'd agree with you if this freedom from religion meant the power to ban religious activities, etc., that can be viewed by non-adherents, like manger scenes at Christmas. If I don't want a religious person legislatively imposing their religion on me, then I'd call that freedom from religion. Freedom of religion is for religious folk, freedom from religion is for everyone.

Cyclotron -

I was under the impression the liberal opposition to vouchers was based on the fact that most people either can't use them or don't need them, so mostly the effect is just a money drain on the public schools.

If that reason for opposing vouchers was valid, the money "drain" wouldn't be enough to worry about since so few people could make use of the vouchers. Polls of inner city families that care about education show alot of support for vouchers because it's their kids stuck in those public schools while most of the liberal elite send their kids to private schools, oh the irony.

[Ramo]

US liberalism is pretty much really weak social democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now, I'd agree with you if this freedom from religion meant the power to ban religious activities, etc., that can be viewed by non-adherents, like manger scenes at Christmas.

I think that is what Ned means entirely. Freedom from Religion being preventing you from wearing a cross, etc.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If that reason for opposing vouchers was valid, the money "drain" wouldn't be enough to worry about since so few people could make use of the vouchers. Polls of inner city families that care about education show alot of support for vouchers because it's their kids stuck in those public schools while most of the liberal elite send their kids to private schools, oh the irony.

No, you see, that's the problem. They only benefit a small fringe, but they end up taking money out of the system for a lot of people in private schools already who don't need it.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

I think that is what Ned means entirely. Freedom from Religion being preventing you from wearing a cross, etc.

While I see the teacher wearing a cross as basicly neutral and not an attempt to proselytise, we don't have the freedom to wear whatever we want while on the job in the name of religious freedom. But as one of her "employers" I have no problem with wearing religious icons/idols.

Cyclotron -

No, you see, that's the problem. They only benefit a small fringe, but they end up taking money out of the system for a lot of people in private schools already who don't need it.

Then means test so wealthy liberals can't use the money to pay for their kid's PRIVATE education.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

I was under the impression the liberal opposition to vouchers was based on the fact that most people either can't use them or don't need them, so mostly the effect is just a money drain on the public schools.

It's difficult to seperate the American Liberal's position on this matter from that of the teacher's unions who oppose vouchers in every case. For instance we (Colorado) had a voucher proposal that would have increased spending on every child in the public school system as well as begin a limited voucher system for students of the worst schools, and it was opposed successfully by the NEA and their liberal supporters. Of course it took an immense infusion of cash from the NEA to fund the misleading advertising campaign (which made the same argument you state above) to make it work. They managed to make people believe that the proposal would cut rather than increase spending on public schools.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin


Key phrase is I AM AN ATHIEST!!!

Ah, the religious philosophy of the truly dense.

[Sava]

Ned: